Chapter 9

THE MATERIALS SELECTION

PROCESS

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 1

 Chapter 9: Goal and objectives
The overall goal of this chapter is to illustrate how systematic
selection procedures can be used to select optimum materials and
processes for a given component.
The main objectives are to illustrate how to:
1. Analyze material performance requirements for a given
application.
2. Create alternative solutions, screen them, and then rank the viable
candidates.
3. Use quantitative methods in materials selection.
4. Incorporate computer methods in the selection process.
5. Find reliable sources of material properties.

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 2

 The nature of the selection process

Selecting the optimum combination of material and process

cannot be performed at one certain stage in the history of a
project, it should gradually evolve during the different stages of
product development.

After identifying the function of the component, the following

questions become important:

• What are the primary design and material requirements?

• What are the secondary requirements and are they necessary?

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 3

 General steps in materials selection

1. Analysis of the performance requirements.

2. Development of alternative solutions to the problem.
3. Evaluation of the different solutions.
4. Decision on the optimum solution.

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 4

Fig. 9.1 Major stages of design and the related stages of materials selection I

Stages of Design Stages of Materials Selection

Preliminary and Conceptual Analysis of material performance
Design requirements

Translate marketing ideas into Creating alternative material and

industrial design leading to broad
description of the product: What is
it? What does it do? How does it do
it? How much should it be?
Formulate product specifications,
develop various concepts and select
the optimum concept
Decompose the product into
subassemblies and identify the
different parts of each subassembly.
Specifying the main function of
each part and identify their critical
requirements.
Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag
process solutions for the optimum
concept
Initial Screening
Use the critical requirements of each
part to define the performance
requirements of the material. Start
with all materials available and
narrow down the choices on the basis
of the rigid requirements.
5
Fig. 9.1 Major stages of design and the related stages of materials selection II

Stages of Design Stages of Materials Selection

Configuration (Embodiment) Comparing Alternative Solutions

Design
Use soft material requirements to
Develop a qualitative sketch of each further narrow the field of possible
part giving only the order of materials to a few optimum
magnitude of the main dimensions but candidates.
showing the main features – walls,
bosses, ribs, holes, grooves, etc

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 6

Fig. 9.1 Major stages of design and the related stages of materials selection III

Stages of Design Stages of Materials Selection

Detail (Parametric ) Design Selection of Optimum Solution

Determine the dimensions and Use the optimum materials and

features of the parts based on a matching manufacturing processes
specific material and a manufacturing to make detail designs.
process taking into account the design Compare alternative combinations
limitations, the manufacturing taking into account the elements of
process, weight concerns, space cost.
limitations, etc. The cost must now be Select optimum combination of
considered in detail. design-material-manufacturing
Generation of an alternative detail process
design, which requires selecting a
design based on alternative materials
and evaluation against requirements.

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 7

 Analysis of material performance
requirements

The material performance requirements can be divided into 5 broad

categories:

• Functional requirements
• Processability requirements
• Cost
• Reliability requirements
• Resistance to service conditions

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 8

 Creating alternative solutions
Having specified the material requirements, the rest of the selection
process involves the search for the material that would best meet
those requirements.

The starting point is the entire range of engineering materials.

At this stage, it is essential to open up channels in different

directions. A steel may be the best material for one design
concept while a plastic is best for a different concept, even
though the two designs provide similar functions.

The importance of this phase is that it creates alternatives without

much regard to their feasibility.
Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 9
 Initial screening of solutions I
Rigid materials and process requirements

Initial screening of materials can be achieved by first classifying their

performance requirements into two main categories:
• Rigid, or go-no-go, requirements.
• Soft, or relative, requirements.

Materials that do not satisfy the rigid requirements are eliminated.

For example, metals and alloys are eliminated when selecting
materials for an electrical insulator.

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 10

 Initial screening of solutions II
Cost per unit property method

In the case of tensile members, the cost of unit strength

[(C ρ)/S]
can be used for initial screening. Materials with lower cost
per unit strength are preferable. If an upper limit is set for
the quantity (C ρ)/S, then materials satisfying this
condition can be identified and used as possible candidates
for more detailed analysis in the next stage of selection.

• Table 9.1 gives some formulas for cost per unit property
under different loading conditions
Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 11
 Initial screening of solutions III

Table 9.1 Formulas for estimating cost per unit property

Cross-section and loading condition Cost per unit strength Cost per unit stiffness
Solid cylinder in tension or compression C /S C /E
Solid cylinder in bending C /S 2/3
C /E1/2

Solid cylinder in torsion C /S 2/3

C /G 1/2

Solid cylindrical bar as slender column --- C /E1/2

Solid rectangle in bending C /S 1/2
C /E1/3

Thin-walled cylindrical pressure vessel C /S ---

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 12

 Initial screening of solutions IV
Case study 9.1-Selecting a beam material for minimum cost I

A simply supported beam of rectangular cross section of length

1 meter, width 100 mm, and no restriction on the depth is
subjected to a load of 20 kN in its middle.

The main design requirement is that the beam should not suffer
plastic deformation as a result of load application.

Select the least expensive material for the beam from Table 9.2.

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 13

 Initial screening of solutions IV
Case study 9.1-Selecting a beam material for minimum
cost II
Table 9.2 Characteristics of candidate materials for the beam

Material Working stress a Specific Relative Cost of

MPa ksi gravity cost b unit
strength
Steel AISI 1020, normalized 117 17 7.86 1 0.73
Steel AISI 4140, normalized 222 32 7.86 1.38 0.73
Aluminum 6061, T6 temper 93 13.5 2.7 6 1.69
Epoxy+70% glass fibers 70 10.2 2.11 9 2.26

a The working stress is computed from yield strength using a factor of safety of 3.
b The relative cost per unit weight is based on AISI 1020 steel as unity.Material and processing
costs are included in the relative cost.
Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 14
 Initial screening of solutions IV
Case study 9.1-Selecting a beam material for minimum
cost III
Solution:

• Based on Table 9.2 and the appropriate formula from

Table 9.1, the cost of unit strength for the different
materials is calculated and the results are given in the last
column of Table 9.2.

• The results show that steels AISI 1020 and 4140 are
equally suitable, while Al 6061 and epoxy - glass are more
expensive.
Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 15
Ashby’s
method
for initial
screening
I

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 16

 Ashby’s
method
for initial
screening
II

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 17

 Comparing and ranking alternatives I
Weighted properties method I
In this method each material requirement is assigned a certain
weight, depending on its importance.

A weighted property value is obtained by multiplying the scaled

value of the property by the weighting factor (α).

The weighted property values of each material are then summed to

give a performance index (γ). The material with the highest
performance index (γ) is optimum for the application.

numerical value of property x 100

B = scaled property = -------------------------------------------
maximum value in the list
Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 18
 Comparing and ranking alternatives I
Weighted properties method II
For cost, corrosion loss, etc., a lower value is more desirable and the
lowest value is rated as 100

minimum value in the list x 100

B = scaled property = -----------------------------------------
numerical value of property

n
Material performance index = γ = Σ Bi αi
i=1
where i is summed over all the n relevant properties.

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 19

 Comparing and ranking alternatives I
The Digital Logic Method

Table 9.3 Determination of the relative importance of goals using the digital logic method

Goals Number of positive decisions N = n(n -1)/2 Positive Relative

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 decisions emphasis
coefficient

1 1 1 0 1 3 0.3
2 0 1 0 1 2 0.2
3 0 0 1 0 1 0.1
4 1 1 0 0 2 0.2
5 0 0 1 1 2 0.2
Total number of positive decisions 10   = 1.0

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 20

 Comparing and ranking alternatives I
Taking cost into consideration
Cost can be considered as one of the properties and given a weighting
factor or considered separately as a modifier to the material
performance index (γ).
In the cases where the material is used for space filling, cost can be
introduced on per unit volume basis. A figure of merit (M) for the
material can then be defined as:
M = γ/(C ρ)
C = total cost of the material per unit weight (stock, processing,
finishing, ...etc)
ρ = density of the material.

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 21

 Case study 9.2-Selecting the optimum material for a
cryogenic storage tank

Materials requirements:
• used in cryogenic applications for liquefied nitrogen gas) must
not suffer ductile-brittle transition at -196oC
• Using stronger material gives thinner walls, which means a lighter
tank, lower cool down losses, and easier to weld.
• Lower specific gravity gives lighter tank.
• Lower specific heat reduces cool down losses.
• Lower thermal expansion coefficient reduces thermal stresse.
• Lower thermal conductivity reduces heat losses.
• The cost of material and processing will be used as a modifier to
the material performance index.

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 22

 Table 9.4 Application of digital logic method to
cryogenic tank problem
Property Decision number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Toughness 1 1 1 1 1 1

Yield strength 0 1 0 0 1 1

Young’s modulus 0 0 0 0 0 1

Density 0 1 1 1 1 1

Expansion 0 1 1 0 1 1

Conductivity 0 0 1 0 0 0

Specific heat 0 0 0 0 0 1

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 23

 Table 9.5 Weighting factors for cryogenic tank

Property Positive decisions Weighting factor

Toughness 6 0.28

Yield strength 3 0.14

Young’s modulus 1 0.05

Density 5 0.24

Expansion 4 0.19

Conductivity 1 0.05

Specific heat 1 0.05

Total 21 1.00

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 24

 Table 9.6 Properties of candidate materials for cryogenic tank

Material 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Toughness Yield Young’s Specific Thermal Thermal Specific

index a strength modulus gravity expansion conductivity heat d
b c
(GPa)
(MPa)

Al 2014-T6 75.5 420 74.2 2.8 21.4 0.37 0.16

Al 5052-O 95 91 70 2.68 22.1 0.33 0.16

SS 301-FH 770 1365 189 7.9 16.9 0.04 0.08

SS 310- 187 1120 210 7.9 14.4 0.03 0.08

3/4H

Ti-6Al-4V 179 875 112 4.43 9.4 0.016 0.09

Inconel 718 239 1190 217 8.51 11.5 0.31 0.07

70Cu-30Zn 273 200 112 8.53 19.9 0.29 0.06

a
Toughness index, TI, is based on UTS, yield strength YS, and ductility e, at-196 oC (-321.8 oF)

TI = (UTS+YS)e/2
b
Thermal expansion coefficient is given in 10-6/ oC. The values are averaged between RT and -
196 oC.
c
Thermal conductivity is given in cal/cm2/cm/ oC /s.
d
Specific heat is given in cal/g/oC. The values are averaged between RT and -196 oC.

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 25

Table 9.7 Scaled values of properties and performance index

Material Scaled properties Performance

index (γ)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Al 2014-T6 10 30 34 96 44 4.3 38 42.2

Al 5052-O 12 6 32 100 43 4.8 38 40.1

SS 301-FH 100 100 87 34 56 40 75 70.9

SS 310-3/4H 24 82 97 34 65 53 75 50.0

Ti-6Al-4V 23 64 52 60 100 100 67 59.8

Inconel 718 31 87 100 30 82 5.2 86 53.3

70Cu-30Zn 35 15 52 30 47 5.5 100 35.9

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 26
Table 9.8 Cost, figure of merit, and ranking of candidate materials

Material Relative cost Cost of unit Performance Figure of Rank

a
strengthx100 index merit

Al 2014-T6 1 0.67 42.2 62.99 2

Al 5052-O 1.05 3.09 40.1 12.98 6

SS 301-FH 1.4 0.81 70.9 87.53 1

SS 310-3/4H 1.5 1.06 50.0 47.17 3

Ti-6Al-4V 6.3 3.20 59.8 18.69 4

Inconel 718 5.0 3.58 53.3 14.89 5

70Cu-30Zn 2.1 8.96 35.9 4.01 7

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 27

 Comparing and ranking alternatives II
Limits on properties method I
The performance requirements are divided into three categories:
• lower limit properties;
• upper limit properties;
• target value properties.

The limits can be used for eliminating unsuitable materials from a

data bank.

After the elimination stage, the limits on properties method can then
be used to optimize the selection from among the remaining
materials.

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 28

 Limits on properties method II
Merit parameter, m, is calculated for each material:

 nl Yi   nu X i   nt Xk 
m =   i     j

   k
 1  (9.8)
 i 1 X i  l  j 1 Yi  u  k 1 Yk 
t

l, u, and t stand for lower limit, upper limit, and target values
nl, nu and nt are numbers of lower limit, upper limit and target values
αi, αj and αk are weighs of lower limit, upper limit, and target values.
Xi, Xj and Xk are candidate material lower limit, upper limit, and
target value properties.
Yi, Yj and Yk are specified lower limits, upper limits, and target
values.

The lower the value of the merit parameter, m, the better the material.

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 29

 Limits on properties method II
Case study 9.3 - Selecting an insulating material for a
flexible electrical cable

Rigid requirements: flexibility, which eliminates all ceramics.

The electrical and physical design requirements are:

1. Dielectric strength: a lower limit property > 10,000 volts/mm.

2. Insulating resistance: a lower limit property > 1014 ohm/cm.
3. Dissipation factor: an upper limit property < 0.0015 at 60 Hz.
4. Dielectric constant: an upper limit requirement < 3.5 at 60 Hz.
5. Thermal expansion is a target value is taken as 2.3x10-5/oC.
Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 30
Table 9.9 Properties of some candidate insulating materials

Material Dielectric Volume Dissipation Dielectric Thermal Relative

strength resistance factor constant expansion
(V/mm) (ohm/cm) cost a
(60 Hz) (60 Hz) (10-5/oC)

PTFE 14,820 1018 0.0002 2.1 9.5 4.5

CTFE 21,450 1018 0.0012 2.7 14.4 9.0

ETFE 78,000 1016 0.0006 2.6 9.0 8.5

Polyphenylene
oxide 20,475 1017 0.0006 2.6 6.5 2.6

Polysulfone 16,575 1014 0.0010 3.1 5.6 3.5

Polypropylene 21,450 1016 0.0005 2.2 8.6 1.0

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 31

 Table 9.10 Weighting factors for an electrical insulator
Property Decision number Total Weighting factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Dielectric 0 1 1 0 1 3 0.20
strength

Volume 1 1 1 1 1 5 0.33
resistance

Dissipation factor 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.13

Dielectric 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.07
constant

Thermal 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.07
expansion

Cost 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.20

15 1.00

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 32

 Table 9.11 Evaluation of insulating materials

Material Merit parameter (m) Rank

PTFE 0.78 3
CTFE 1.07 6
ETFE 0.81 5
Polyphenylene oxide 0.66 1
Polysulfone 0.78 3
Polypropylene 0.66 1

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 33

 Comparing and ranking alternatives III
Case study 9.4 - Using AHP to select the optimum material
for a roof truss I
Material performance requiremens:
• high strength (σ),
• high elastic modulus (E),
• low density (ρ)
• low cost (C). The candidate materials are:

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 34

 Case study 9.4 - Using AHP to select the optimum
material for a roof truss II
Table 9.12 Properties of the candidate materials for the truss

Yield strength Elastic modulus Density (ρ) Cost category

(σ) MPa (E) GPa g/cc (C)*
AISI 1020 280 210 7.8 5
AISI 4130 1520 212 7.8 3
AA 6061 275 70 2.7 4
Epoxy-70% 1270 28 2.1 2
glass fabric

* 5, very inexpensive; 4, inexpensive; 3, moderate price; 2, expensive; 1, very expensive

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 35
Case study 9.4 - Using AHP to select the optimum
material for a roof truss III

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 36

Case study 9.4 - Using AHP to select the optimum material
for a roof truss IV

Table 9.13 Pairwise comparison of material requirements

σ E ρ C
σ 1 1/5 1/3 1/2
E 5 1 2 4
ρ 3 1/2 1 3
C 2 1/4 1/3 1

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 37

Case study 9.4 - Using AHP to select the optimum material
for a roof truss V

Table 9.14 Calculation of Weights

σ E ρ C Average/weight Consistency
measure
σ 0.091 0.102 0.091 0.059 0.086 4.02
E 0.455 0.513 0.545 0.471 0.496 4.07
ρ 0.273 0.256 0.273 0.353 0.289 4.09
C 0.182 0.128 0.091 0.118 0.129 4.04
Total/Average 1.001 0.999 1.000 1.001 1.000 4.055

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 38

Case study 9.4 - Using AHP to select the optimum material
for a roof truss VI
Table (9.15) Random Index (RI) as a function of the number of properties (n)

n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RI 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49

Table 9.16 Results of AHP for the truss materials

Material Rank Score Major contributions to the score

σ E ρ C
AISI 1020 2 0.286 77% 23%
AISI 4130 1 0.293 16% 76% 8%
AA 6061 3 0.231 22% 59% 19%
Composite 4 0.191 20% 80%

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 39

 Reaching final decision
Case study 9.5- Selecting the optimum material for a
sailing-boat mast component I
Problem: Select the least expensive component for a sailing-boat
mast in the form of a hollow cylinder

Load: Compressive axial forces of 153 kN in addition to mechanical

impact and spray of water.
Length 1000 mm
Outer diameter < 100 mm,
Inner diameter > 84 mm
Mass should < 3 kg.
Small holes are needed for assembly to other components.

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 40

 Case study 9.5- Selecting the optimum material for a
sailing-boat mast component II

Material performance requirements

• High fracture toughness is a rigid requirement and will be used for

initial screening of materials.
• High yield strength.
• High elastic modulus to resist local and global buckling.
• Good corrosion resistance.
• Use a factor of safety of 1.5 for improved i.e. the working axial
force is taken as 230 kN.

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 41

 Case study 9.5- Selecting the optimum material for a
sailing-boat mast component III

Initial screening of materials

• The requirement for fracture toughness of the material is used to

eliminate ceramic materials.

• Because of the limitations on OD and ID, cross section should not

exceed 2300 mm2.

• To avoid yielding under the axial load, the yield strength > 100
MPa.

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 42

Table (9.17) Properties of Sample Candidate Materials. (Based on Farag and El-Magd)
Material Yield Elastic Specific Corrosion Cost
Strength Modulus Gravity Resistance* Category**
(MPa) (GPa)
AISI 1020 280 210 7.8 1 5
(UNS G10200)
AISI 1040 400 210 7.8 1 5
(UNS G10400)
ASTM A242 type1 330 212 7.8 1 5
(UNS K11510)
AISI 4130 1520 212 7.8 4 3
(UNS G41300)
AISI 316 205 200 7.98 4 3
(UNS S31600)
AISI 416 Ht. Treated 440 216 7.7 4 3
(UNS S41600)
AISI 431 Ht. Treated 550 216 7.7 4 3
(UNS S43100)
AA 6061 T6 275 69.7 2.7 3 4
(UNS A96061)
AA 2024 T6 393 72.4 2.77 3 4
(UNS A92024)
AA 2014 T6 415 72.1 2.8 3 4
(UNS A92014)
AA 7075 T6 505 72.4 2.8 3 4
(UNS A97075)
Ti-6Al-4V 939 124 4.5 5 1
Epoxy-70% glass fabric 1270 28 2.1 4 2
Epoxy-63% carbon fabric 670 107 1.61 4 1
Epoxy-62%aramid fabric 880 38 1.38 4 1

* 5 Excellent, 4 Very good, 3 Good, 2 Fair, 1 Poor

** 5 Very inexpensive, 4 Inexpensive, 3 Moderate price, 2 Expensive, 1 Very
expensive
Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 43
Table (9.18) Properties of Sample Candidate Materials

Material Specific Specific Corrosion Cost

Strength (MPa) Modulus (GPa) Resistance* Category**
AISI 1020 35.9 26.9 1 5
(UNS G10200)
AISI 1040 51.3 26.9 1 5
(UNS G10400)
ASTM A242 type1 42.3 27.2 1 5
(UNS K11510)
AISI 4130 194.9 27.2 4 3
(UNS G41300)
AISI 316 25.6 25.1 4 3
(UNS S31600)
AISI 416 Ht. Treated 57.1 28.1 4 3
(UNS S41600)
AISI 431 Ht. Treated 71.4 28.1 4 3
(UNS S43100)
AA 6061 T6 101.9 25.8 3 4
(UNS A96061)
AA 2024 T6 141.9 26.1 3 4
(UNS A92024)
AA 2014 T6 148.2 25.8 3 4
(UNS A92014)
AA 7075 T6 180.4 25.9 3 4
(UNS A97075)
Ti-6Al-4V 208.7 27.6 5 1
Epoxy-70% glass fabric 604.8 28 4 2
Epoxy-63% carbon fabric 416.2 66.5 4 1
Epoxy-62%aramid fabric 637.7 27.5 4 1

* 5 Excellent, 4 Very good, 3 Good, 2 Fair, 1 Poor

** 5 Very inexpensive, 4 Inexpensive, 3 Moderate price, 2 Expensive, 1 Very
expensive

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 44

 Case study 9.5- Selecting the optimum material for a
sailing-boat mast component VI

Table (9.19) Weighting Factors

Property Specific Strength Specific Modulus Corrosion Relative

(MPa) (GPa) Resistance Cost
Weighting 0.3 0.3 0.15 0.25
Factor (α)

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 45

 Table (9.20) Calculation of the Performance Index
Scaled Scaled Scaled Scaled Performance
Material Specific Specific Corrosion Relative Index (γ)
Strength Modulus Resistance Cost
* 0.3 * 0.3 * 0.15 * 0.25
AISI 1020 1.7 12.3 3 25 42
(UNS G10200)
AISI 1040 2.4 12.3 3 25 42.7
(UNS G10400)
ASTM A242 type1 2 12.3 3 25 42.3
(UNS K11510)
AISI 4130 9.2 12.3 6 15 42.5
(UNS G41300)
AISI 316 1.2 11.3 12 15 39.5
(UNS S31600)
AISI 416 Ht. Treated 2.7 12.7 12 15 42.4
(UNS S41600)
AISI 431 Ht. Treated 3.4 12.7 12 15 43.1
(UNS S43100)
AA 6061 T6 4.8 11.6 9 20 45.4
(UNS A96061)
AA 2024 T6 6.7 11.8 9 20 47.5
(UNS A92024)
AA 2014 T6 7 11.6 9 20 47.6
(UNS A92014)
AA 7075 T6 8.5 11.7 9 20 49.2
(UNS A97075)
Ti-6Al-4V 9.8 12.5 15 5 42.3
Epoxy-70% glass fabric 28.4 12.6 12 10 63
Epoxy-63% carbon fabric 19.6 30 12 5 66.6
Epoxy-62%aramid fabric 30 12.4 12 5 59.4

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 46

 Case study 9.5- Selecting the optimum material for a
sailing-boat mast component VIII
The component must resist 4 possible failure modes:

1. Condition for yielding: F/A < σy Eq (9.11)

σy is yield strength
F is external working axial force,
A is cross sectional area

2. Condition for local buckling: F/A < 0.121 E S/D Eq (9.12)

D is outer diameter of the cylinder,
S is wall thickness of the cylinder,
E is elastic modulus
Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 47
 Case study 9.5- Selecting the optimum material for a
sailing-boat mast component IX

3. Condition for global buckling:

σy > F/A [1+(L D A/1000 I) sec {(F/EI)1/2 L/2}] Eq (9.13)
I is second moment of area,
L is length of the component

4. Condition for fiber buckling: F/A < [Em/4(1+υm)(1-Vf1/2)]

Eq (9.14)
Em is elastic modulus of the matrix material,
υm is Poisson’s ratio of the matrix material,
Vf is volume fraction of fibers parallel to loading direction
Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 48
Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 49
Table (9.21) Designs Using Candidate Materials With Highest Performance Indices.
(Based on Farag and El-Magd)

Material Da S A Mass Cost/kg Cost of

(mm) (mm) (mm2) (kg) ($) Component ($)
AA 6061 T6 100 3.4 1065.7 2.88 8 23.2
(UNS A96061)
AA 2024 T6 88.3 2.89 801.1 2.22 8.3 18.4
(UNS A92024)
AA 2014 T6 85.6 2.89 776.6 2.17 9 19.6
(UNS A92014)
AA 7075 T6 78.1 2.89 709.1 1.99 10.1 20
(UNS A97075)
Epoxy-70% glass 78 4.64 1136.3 2.39 30.8 73.6
fabric
Epoxy-63% carbon 73.4 2.37 546.1 0.88 99 87.1
fabric
Epoxy-62%aramid 75.1 3.99 941.6 1.30 88 114.4
fabric
Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 50
 Chapter 9: Summary I
1. It is desirable for product development teams to adopt the
concurrent engineering approach, where materials and
manufacturing processes are considered in the early stages of
design and are more precisely defined as the design progresses
from the concept to the embodiment and finally the detail stage.

2. Stages of the selection process are:

• analysis of the performance requirements and creating
alternative solutions,
• initial screening of solutions,
• comparing and ranking alternative solutions, and
• selecting the optimum solution.
Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 51
 Chapter 9: Summary II
3. Methods for initial screening:
• Cost per unit property
• Ashby’s selection charts,
• Dargie’s method, and
• Esawi and Ashby’s method

4. Ranking alternatives:
• Weighted property method
• The limits on properties method
• The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 52

 Chapter 9: Summary III

5. Reaching final decision

• After ranking of alternatives, candidates that have the most

promising performance indices can each now be used to develop a
detail design.
• Each detail design will exploit the points of strength of the material,
avoid the weak points, and reflect the requirements of the
manufacturing processes needed for the material.
• After completing the different designs, solutions are then compared,
taking the cost elements into consideration in order to arrive at the
optimum design-material-process combination.
Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 53
 Chapter 9: Summary IV

Sources of material information

• Reliable and consistent sources of materials information

are essential for successful materials selection.
• More detail and higher accuracy of information are needed
as the selection process progresses from the initial
screening to the final selection stage.
• Several databases and Internet sources are cited for these
purposes.

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design: Mahmoud Farag 54